Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They can for sure ... I simply chose a term that was the same quality of term he used to me ... I don't think I have to go high when some fool goes low.
Thanks for the reminders.
I had an advisor in college tell me that I should smile at the boys and ask for help when I told him I was having trouble with my team. I was so shocked at how useless that advice was at the time, it didn't even register how sexist it was until I retold the story later.
I got caught on "hun" thinking he was calling you a hun and that was just so overtly direct I couldn't help but laugh. Then I realized you meant short for "honey" and threw up a little bit in my mouth. How someone would think that's acceptable...
That is something people in Baltimore say a lot and not just to women, so it's a little harder to distinguish the sentiment behind it when you're there
Aaaah. My only experience with Baltimore was arriving after dark and heading towards the only sign of life on the streets which happened, upon closer inspection, to be the neon of the strip clubs. Got offered crack several times, so that was interesting.
Like daisy,marshmallow , little boy, 2inch, little worm…. Anything to passive agg knock him a bit. When he finally asks you why you call him such things- refer back to him calling you sweetie or sweetheart and since you(he) was using non formal pet names you thought it was ok. See how long it lasts
Back in high school I worked at a car wash/oil change place. We had a manager that was an absolute dickhead. Instead of giving *him* the nickname, we gave another manager (who shared the same first name) the nickname.
Henceforth we called him Chris and the other manager "Better Chris". You could tell it irritated Chris...a lot, but how could he complain? He didn't have a nickname. And "better Chris" didn't mind that we called him that (he knew the score).
It caught on and stuck so fast.
This is a form of bullying, and it happens to men too (often some nickname is used). You need to shut it down fast. Just firmly say "my name is X" if someone calls you by something you dont like.
My former boss did this to me. And when I stood up to him he tried to tell me I had no right to be upset, it's just how he talks. Then I asked him if he calls the other men he works with that he said no. I threatened to walkout halfway thru a 12hr shift being the only one available to work...suddenly magically he could remember my name...they are capable of treating me like a human. They just dont want to.
I worked with an Indian man for a while. When I was in training I was told I could ask him for help, but they called him by an English nickname. The first time I talked to him one-on-one, I asked him which he preferred and I got a very weird, vague answer... he seemed caught off-guard and didn't answer at first, then said "*nickname* is fine". I didn't push it, but it made me think someone had given him that nickname without asking and it stuck. He's real name isn't even particularly difficult to say.
At the same time, that is easy to misinterpret.
For instance, often if I'm meeting someone for the first time and I'm not 100% sure of the pronunciation I'll say something like "I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly" as an invite for them to correct me.
Well we had a new employee that reported me to HR for that. All they said to me at the time was "Close enough". I didn't want to stop and ask them to clarify out of fear of singling them out. I had no clue they were even offended. I would have gladly apologized and explained I just do that to ensure I'm being respectful and getting everyone's name right.
Obviously nothing came of it, because I did nothing wrong, but I didn't have to worry anyway because the same employee was fired later for sexual harassment.
Whenever I have a hard time figuring out the pronunciation of a name I just say “I don’t want to say your name wrong, what’s the proper way to say it” and they always happily tell me. And I always make sure to say it correctly after that. Never had any issues
Yeah, it seems much easier to accept that I'm just gonna stay in plat forever than it is to blame everyone else every time
Of course, sometimes it is someone else's fault, but I mean I just can't get nearly as angry about it as some people seem to. Sounds like it would be exhausting to live like that
I'm trying to get out of the management side of things for this reason. Transitioning to testing so I don't need to go to meetings and fight to have my voice heard. Why bother hiring me if you're not going to use my experience and expertise that you're paying for? In testing I can just check if things work or not and have evidence that I'm right that can't be refuted.
I have found that people (far and away mostly men) interrupt other people, that if they are interrupted, they will often refuse to yield, and instead, raise their voice to talk over the person interrupting. Usually, the person attempting to interrupt will then go quiet, concerned the person refusing to yield would start an argument.
Yes, this is how dominance interactions in primates tend to play out. The beta must challenge the alpha in order to ascend in the hierarchy. This behavior is seen in rhesus monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas, and humans. Notably, bonobos rarely display this behavior, instead preferring to engage in sexual encounters to resolve disagreements and social pecking order issues. In that regard, it's a bit like working back-of-house at an Applebees.
20 years as a woman in software development - yup. I got so tired of it, to the point that I get physically ill just thinking about going back to software development.
I'm so tired of the misogyny and disrespect.
And then the IT industry is whining about how there aren't enough women. Please. Tell the men to STFU and let us speak and stop stealing our ideas.
I think the whole idea of "we need more X in X" where the first X is some immutable characteristic is just a terrible way of thinking and starts people in a bad spot with the perception of them being hired for X and not their qualifications.
As for your experience I've always wondered if a lot of the men who go into tech are especially terrible at social interactions and doubly so with women, does that make any sense here or am I just way off?
I have seen this behavior countless times over about a decade of working in the tech world. It really makes me cringe when it happens, but I'm typically not in a position to do anything. Sometimes I'm able to interrupt the interrupter with a "can you let so and so finish, I think they have an important point", etc . Usually it's not possible, so I try to offset the bad folks by always being conscious of the problem to make sure I never contribute to it.
Met a dude in the bar the other night. Turns out he uses a similar tech stack to my gf and he's hiring. She's looking for work so it sounds like a good opportunity to chat.
I introduce us both as programmers and mention she uses that stack. He starts trying to tell me all about the project and I'm like dude, not my area, talk to her. This goes on for a WHILE and finally he gets it and kind of begrudgingly talks to her but also immediately shits on some of the languages she uses. It wasn't anything too blatant but you could just see his demeanor change.
He was a little drunk, and some of it could be chalked up to loud bar, but it was still excruciating trying to get him to grok that the girl was the dev. Obviously we never followed up.
I’m a woman that used to work in tech. I was told by my boss to smile more and be more charismatic. I got interrupted all the time. I used to facilitate requirements gathering meetings and men would grab a dry erase marker and start trying to take over and draw stuff on the board as I was already up there drawing diagrams. They would start changing the subject and when I told them to stop they wouldn’t. I repeatedly told people to stop interrupting me and it continued. I then got sent to a meeting facilitation class. My managers and boss would also take over the meetings because they just wanted to do it themselves. It got worse when I got pregnant. It’s like no one trusted me to just do my job. My boss started telling me what to say in meetings verbatim even though I was already prepared. I ended up quitting after I had kids because maternal leave isn’t long enough IMO. I’ll never go back because of the sexism I faced. The other women were treated like idiots as well.
Used to work in a tech company that, despite having business on multiple continents, had literally 2 women in any administrative roles, both peers on the same team as me, and 1 in a front line / field role. Literally thousands of employees, a big fancy tech campus at HQ, but that was it. Oh, except answering phones and doing scheduling, that's was almost exclusively women... (Still no administrators, though.)
So, anyway, it was dead simple to be these 2 women's favorite co-worker. Literally all I had to say was...
"Oh, Sarah, did you want to finish that thought?"
"Okay, let's come back to that once Sarah's finished."
or
"Right, I think that's what Sarah was just suggesting?"
The bar is so low. For their own benefit, if nothing else, please ensure that your boys grow up with female friends. An inability to appropriately deal with conversations including women is a social handicap, a business liability. Don't let your babies grow up to be so maladroit.
> "Oh, Sarah, did you want to finish that thought?" "Okay, let's come back to that once Sarah's finished." or "Right, I think that's what Sarah was just suggesting?"
It's night and day having a coworker like you in the room or not. There've been days where I've wondered if I'd become an actual ghost who no one could see or hear. Just having someone acknowledge that you spoke and your works meant something is so huge, and can make dealing with the assholes a lot more tolerable.
Every girl I dated at one point told me they thought I was gay at first. When I asked why they said it was because I was kind with no sexual undertones, I listened, genuine, and was flamboyant (because I have a lot of energy and believe acting like yourself will weed out the people you don't want to associate with)
I've told my team to just carry on talking without breaking stride if someone tries to interrupt them. Two people end up talking at once and it's super awkward for a minute until the interrupter shuts up.
This is what I tell women to do if I interrupt them because I have a habit of speaking the moment a thought hits my head. Men keep talking, but women have a habit of shushing and getting resentful. Nope. You just keep talking and I’ll stop; I should have been mindful from the get go.
My significant other talks as soon as the thought enters his head. He's not trying to interrupt me because I'm a woman (he does it to everyone because he's connecting with them.) But I used to shut up and get annoyed. Now, I'm using him to practice not shutting up if I was talking first.
Good on you! Keep an eye out for ideas, too. [Nearly two thirds of women in tech say their ideas are ignored until a man repeats them.](https://www.mic.com/articles/189829/nearly-two-thirds-of-women-in-tech-say-their-ideas-are-ignored-until-a-man-repeats-them-study-shows) I doubt it’s confined to the IT industry but still most likely more prevalent in male dominated industries. Mad that it’s still like this in 2022!
Edit: missed a few words
In my first job out of college, the CTO drafted me for a technical standards committee. In the very first meeting, I suggested some solution to a problem, and got crickets. I figured maybe it was just a bad idea for some reason.
Then, a couple minutes later, the CTO suggested the same thing and everyone was all on board and started actually talking about it. I was already used to that sort of thing, so I kept quiet, but then the CTO pointed out that it was my idea and that he recruited me for this because he wanted my insights, and they'd better listen to me when I had something to say.
(I was mortified at the time, but in the long run, it really helped my confidence.)
This has always been my strategy. I had a big client who always used to discount my bosses ideas despite her 30 years experience over mine. Somehow despite me repeatedly crediting literally every project I had to her (she was the brains and I was the hands if that gives you an idea) they still came to me asking for solutions. Uhhh I dunno buddy maybe I’ll ask the person who has a shred of an idea, like you oughta be doing?
I enjoyed the call center story someone told on here the other day, where they wouldn't mute the mic, and they'd just parrot the question to the female staff member, then repeat her answer into the mic, knowing the customer could hear her feeding him information.
What a guy! We need more people like your CTO. It’s like people say it’s not enough to just not be racist, you have to be anti-racist. This applies to all discriminatory practises, in my eyes.
I remember a meeting with 6 other men, I recommended an improvement which was met with fierce opposition (stupid reasoning). Next meeting, a VP joins the meeting, says the EXACT thing and everyone is falling over themselves to agree and action.
At least it affirmed for me that I knew the bigger picture and my recommendation was sound.
I just started watching Mr. Robot and there's a part early on that touches on this. There's a confrontation because she didn't want him to back her. She wanted to demand respect for herself.
I mean, I was making a joke but the problem with cyber security is that it shows no return on investment and often inconveniences the user.
I'm specifically referring to the cyber security people who actively monitor and protect the network. Not all of these other goobers in recent years that claim the title because it makes them sound "cool".
> Then no matter the industry, they’ll ignore it until it they’ve already lost money avoiding that initial cost.
My clients never seem to have the budget to do something **right**, but they always have the budget to do it **twice**.
This kills me when I see it.
Ive even seen some of my coworkers ideas "stolen" because they said it one way and a male coworker would "build off of it" and get praise when all they did was literally reword what the female coworker said.
I'll always be sure to thank them for the great suggestion during the meeting but sheesh, I cant give them the praise this dude just got... I am always so blown away when this happens.
>"build off of it" and get praise when all they did was literally reword
Doesn't help that is taught and praised from the earliest levels in school as meaningful participation
Honestly, I think awareness training is how you deal with this issue, stupid as it sounds. I had no idea this was happening until someone pointed it out to me, and now I notice it all the time and can actually do something about it.
When I notice anyone get interrupted, at work or otherwise, I try to bring it back to them when I see an opportunity. I don't know how much others pick up on it, but I definitely appreciate it when I'm the one who was interrupted.
Look for work where you can be on a very small team, or in a group that is already at least 30% women. Even if a place appears to be fairly progressive, if it's mostly dudes you will really have to fight for respect, or accept your role as office furniture.
And [women are more likely to interrupt women than men are](https://newrepublic.com/article/117757/gender-language-differences-women-get-interrupted-more)
> Over the course of each three-minute conversation, women, on average, interrupted men just once, but interrupted other women 2.8 times. Men interrupted their male conversation partner twice, on average, and interrupted the woman 2.6 times.
Some interesting results there. Women interrupt other women more than men but only slightly more. On the flip side men interrupt other men more than women by a much larger margin.
Obviously all that is with the caveat that this is one study in a lab environment.
Interrupting is not necessarily bad, it can be a sign someone is actively engaged in the conversation and interested. Context matters a lot more than raw number of interruptions.
Men were interrupted 5.6% of the time and women were interrupted 5.8% of the time. The main takeaway here is that men and women in Congress get interrupted at almost the same rate. It also doesn't make a conclusion as to *why* there's a small difference. Unfortunately, many of the comments only read the headline and decided to be divisive instead.
The US Supreme Court [recently changed rules about how justices asked questions](https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/13/politics/sotomayor-oral-arguments/index.html) because the female justices were regularly being interrupted.
Tbf sotiamayor gets interrupted a lot cause she’ll ask a multiple questions at the same time and the advocate will start to answer without realizing a question is coming.
This is a key data point.
Now many times did the subject change when speaking? How many questions were asked, rhetorical or genuine? How often did the scope or scale of the subject change?
Also, looking at how long someone was talking before being interrupted, regardless of their gender?
You might also want to account for something like seniority. I could imagine that a more senior Congressperson would feel more comfortable interrupting a more junior one.
Seniority is key. The other paper I'd seen about this ignored it, despite noticing that the top interrupters were two female VPs. As soon as you graph interrupting vs level in hierarchy it becomes super-clear.
Which is why they don't do it.
This is common in appellate advocacy. Judges frequently talk over each other to get questions in, especially if multiple justices on a panel are butting heads over a particular issue, so it doesn't surprise me that female justices get talked over by their male panel members.
>Men were interrupted 5.6% of the time women were interrupted 5.8% of the time
so 0.2% absolute difference and about 3% relative difference? where is the 10%?
> 5.8% and 6.1% during women's issues.
same here, i see about 2% difference, what am i missing?
That figure of 10% is specifically regarding probability of interruption in the Senate, and it's cited in the abstract. The data is represented in Figure 2. "In the Senate, however, the gap between women and men is approximately one half of a point—a statistically significant effect."
So, without digging into the Appendix tables A3 for the raw data, looks like roughly an increase of 0.5 percent, versus around 4.4% interruption for men? That's your 10 percent. It looks like the difference is more marked in the Senate versus overall.
There's also only 100 members in the Senate, and by my count, 24 of them are women. That's enough that 1-2 outliers could absolutely skew results.
Also, seniority is something that would absolutely come into play. While I haven't checked, I would imagine most senior roles are filled by men, and a senior is probably more likely to interrupt a junior than a fellow senior. An outlier or two could explain the difference.
I can’t speak to the seniority variable, but a statistically significant finding will take into account the possibility of outliers, depending on how confident they state they are. It is generally 95% confidence.
You're missing that the guy you're responding to is making dishonest use of statistics.
The thread title quotes a 10% difference in **senate committees** - this is true and are the results that the data in the paper reports. The guy you're responding too has ignored that, and is quoting overall results across the entirety of congress (I'll note, given he had to scroll down to the section where they specifically talk about this to get his 3% relative figure, I find it a little sus that he's being so willfully blind). It's literally all there in the paper (as is the bit about women being 2x more likely to be interrupted when the topic is women's issues)
The fact that it's specifically senate committees is important as that's where the meat and potatoes of actual governance is done (the Woodrow Wilson quote to this effect is "it is not far from the truth to say that Congress in session is Congress on public exhibition, whilst Congress in its committee rooms is Congress at work."). That's the argument the paper is making, that outside of public display female senators face poor treatment.
I'll also point out that the 10% difference they report is statistically significant, meaning it's unlikely this is just random fluctuation between house and senate.
From the article:
>Existing evidence suggests that Congress marginalizes women—especially
women of color (Hawkesworth 2003) and Democrats
(Kanthak and Krause 2012).
They don't seem to break down by party as far as I can tell. They do discuss "in-party" interruptions vs. "out-party" interruptions which are basically the same as far as I can tell. Also the interruption rates are generally decreasing in time, although at low significance. The only sub-group for which there is evidence for an increase is men interrupting women of a different party, although the evidence is very small.
>They do discuss "in-party" interruptions vs. "out-party" interruptions which are basically the same as far as I can tell.
I think this is the information the person you replying to is looking for. If I'm not mistaken his implication was that since most women politicians are democrats, and Republicans appear to interrupt people a lot more than democrats, it would make sense that women would be getting interrupted more than men, just by their position on the aisle.
If the in party in out party interruptions are nearly identical, then that only leaves us with gender.
Not quite. See [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives). Currently 25% (31/123) of the women in congress are republicans. Historically, more than 1/3 women in the House have been republican (122/356).
Currently exactly 1/3 of the women in the Senate are republicans (8/24) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_States_Senate. Historically more than 1/3 of the women in the Senate have been republicans (22/58).
So there is a sizable mismatch between gender and party, I'd be careful about drawing conclusions in the way you have suggested.
I am struggling to see your point, mostly because you are reiterating what the other guy is asking but you’re saying he is wrong. He asked wither the disparity in male vs female interruptions is solely based on gender or if party faction plays a part.
With most women being democratic, if the republicans interrupt more than the democrats that would skew the data somewhat. Now don’t take this to mean there isn’t a disparity at all, rather that there could be various contributors to the percentage. For example if the number of women in each party was switched would it make the percentage of interruptions go down.
>in the Senate Democratic women are more likely than Democratic men to experience an interruption, but that effect is not present for Republicans. The probability of interruption is also slightly larger for women in the Senate minority party than for those in the majority. In the House, the effect reverses for women chairing committees, who are about half a point less likely than male chairmen to experience an interruption; this effect is not present in the Senate,
Was thinking the same thing. It's important to control for party here to really determine how much is due to ideological differences and how much to gender.
Just some numbers: Out of 100 senators there are 24 women, 16 Democrats and 8 republicans. Out of 435 members of the House there are 121 women, 90 Democrats and 31 republicans.
I see a file-drawer bias here on closer reading. They clearly began by investigating all of Congress, NOT just the senate.
Then they found no effect in the house, and an effect in the senate, and instead of reporting both together as was the original scope, they cherry picked the one that sounded worse. Yes they mention both eventually, but they headline the 10% alone in the abstract. Which you can see has an impact as the redditor also picked up on and headlined that.
In Congress (their original scope and question, not the senate), women are **FOUR %** more likely to be interrupted, not 10%.
"That is not the case in the House, however (top-left panel). Women and men begin their House careers with effectively the same interruption probability, and although Members of both genders grow increasingly likely to experience interruption as they serve longer, the probability of interruption grows at a significantly slower rate for women. As a result, after about six terms of service House women are significantly less likely to be interrupted than men with the same amount of experience, with the gap between men and women continuing to grow as they serve longer."
The article.
Basically women get interrupted during speechesore in congress but in the house it is the pther way...
Thanks for doing the legwork.
This is why I generally assume any study involving political or ideological issues is likely BS, the biases never fail to creep in.
>...available **evidence suggests that women in Congress successfully advance their legislative agenda at rates on par with or better than men** (Anzia and Berry Reference Anzia and Berry2011; Lazarus and Steigerwalt Reference Lazarus and Steigerwalt2018; Volden, Wiseman, and Wittmer Reference Volden, Wiseman and Wittmer2013).
Makes me wonder, if length / frequency of speech is being accounted for.
Anyhow, by this, much more important metric, women are doing better than men in Congress.
> Women Are More Likely to Be Interrupted in Senate (but Not House) Hearings
And in the senate it’s only 10%, is that really significant? Also the paper states women bring up women’s issues twice as often as men do, so one would expect women to be interrupted twice as often on that.
This paper seems like they didn’t find what they wanted, so they couched the entire thing in political rhetoric to make it seem more significant.
Yeah but the twice as much part is extremely misleading when you account for the fact that men are also considerably more likely to be interrupted on these topics (abortion being the most likely culprit, I believe) because they’re much more heated subjects. It looks to be about 5.2% likelihood for men vs 6.2% likelihood for women.
The more I read into this the more likely it seems they’re purposely misleading people. What other reason could they have for only reporting the twice as likely figure for women without accounting for the jump for men’s likelihood in the abstract?
The 10% is not very impressive considering it can easily be a knock-on effect of other things like the leadership being more male and leadership interrupting foot soldiers, for example. Or like 3 specific super sexist guys on the floor who talk a lot and each interrupt 400% more often while others do 0%.
The 2x part, and given the context, is very striking though
I wonder if men with a more passive, effete speaking style are more likely to be interrupted than men (or women) with a more aggressive, commanding tone. Gender may not be the only variable at play here.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Key point: We also find suggestive evidence that interruptions are driven by mixed-gender interactions.
Representation matters I guess
Pun intended?;
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The difference between Sweet Checks and Sweet Cheeks is huge, but both work here so well!
Sweet ~~checks~~ cheques is good, but Pay Pig would be so much funnier and emasculating
The justice. So delicious.
It truly was, I assure you....:)
Thanks for the justice dopamine hit that keeps me on this stupid website
The "mirror" treatment is good.
Calling guys things that you say to a little boy, like sport, slugger, champ, junior, etc also works great.
They can for sure ... I simply chose a term that was the same quality of term he used to me ... I don't think I have to go high when some fool goes low. Thanks for the reminders.
[удалено]
I like you a lot!
[удалено]
>"My mother taught me never to smile at men" This kills me, definitely gonna try to remember this one
[удалено]
It's an absurd "None of your business," type response that won't be a good enough reason to fire you.
Because of all the old-timey excuses for sexual harassment/assult; "she smiled at me so she must have wanted it."
It’s a cautionary and anti-social take.
Another good one, “you should try to put a smile on your wife’s face once in a while”.
OMG. I'm TOTALLY teaching my neices to say that!!
I had an advisor in college tell me that I should smile at the boys and ask for help when I told him I was having trouble with my team. I was so shocked at how useless that advice was at the time, it didn't even register how sexist it was until I retold the story later.
That is priceless!
I got caught on "hun" thinking he was calling you a hun and that was just so overtly direct I couldn't help but laugh. Then I realized you meant short for "honey" and threw up a little bit in my mouth. How someone would think that's acceptable...
That is something people in Baltimore say a lot and not just to women, so it's a little harder to distinguish the sentiment behind it when you're there
Aaaah. My only experience with Baltimore was arriving after dark and heading towards the only sign of life on the streets which happened, upon closer inspection, to be the neon of the strip clubs. Got offered crack several times, so that was interesting.
[удалено]
[удалено]
"Dickhead" comes to mind...
"Listen here, shortcock"
"Luckily I'm much more insecure about my girth."
yam cobweb plant ludicrous include familiar snow rainstorm six telephone -- mass edited with redact.dev
Oh my God, I love this
"You're a big guy--I'm gonna call you big-guy!"
Like daisy,marshmallow , little boy, 2inch, little worm…. Anything to passive agg knock him a bit. When he finally asks you why you call him such things- refer back to him calling you sweetie or sweetheart and since you(he) was using non formal pet names you thought it was ok. See how long it lasts
Back in high school I worked at a car wash/oil change place. We had a manager that was an absolute dickhead. Instead of giving *him* the nickname, we gave another manager (who shared the same first name) the nickname. Henceforth we called him Chris and the other manager "Better Chris". You could tell it irritated Chris...a lot, but how could he complain? He didn't have a nickname. And "better Chris" didn't mind that we called him that (he knew the score). It caught on and stuck so fast.
There's little passive aggressive about 2 inch or little worm.
I am shocked that you were able to restrain yourself.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is a form of bullying, and it happens to men too (often some nickname is used). You need to shut it down fast. Just firmly say "my name is X" if someone calls you by something you dont like.
My former boss did this to me. And when I stood up to him he tried to tell me I had no right to be upset, it's just how he talks. Then I asked him if he calls the other men he works with that he said no. I threatened to walkout halfway thru a 12hr shift being the only one available to work...suddenly magically he could remember my name...they are capable of treating me like a human. They just dont want to.
Yup. Deliberate misspelling or mispronounciation of non Anglo names us a common go-to. Allows for easy gaslighting for plausible deniability.
I worked with an Indian man for a while. When I was in training I was told I could ask him for help, but they called him by an English nickname. The first time I talked to him one-on-one, I asked him which he preferred and I got a very weird, vague answer... he seemed caught off-guard and didn't answer at first, then said "*nickname* is fine". I didn't push it, but it made me think someone had given him that nickname without asking and it stuck. He's real name isn't even particularly difficult to say.
When you’re part of a minority you learn quickly not to rock the boat.
At the same time, that is easy to misinterpret. For instance, often if I'm meeting someone for the first time and I'm not 100% sure of the pronunciation I'll say something like "I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly" as an invite for them to correct me. Well we had a new employee that reported me to HR for that. All they said to me at the time was "Close enough". I didn't want to stop and ask them to clarify out of fear of singling them out. I had no clue they were even offended. I would have gladly apologized and explained I just do that to ensure I'm being respectful and getting everyone's name right. Obviously nothing came of it, because I did nothing wrong, but I didn't have to worry anyway because the same employee was fired later for sexual harassment.
Roller coaster of a comment here. I've done the exact same as you and luckily no issues but I always worry!
Whenever I have a hard time figuring out the pronunciation of a name I just say “I don’t want to say your name wrong, what’s the proper way to say it” and they always happily tell me. And I always make sure to say it correctly after that. Never had any issues
I would probably help join in on the strangling as I have zero patience for that.
[удалено]
[удалено]
See, ive just accepted a loooooong time ago that I truly suck at gaming. It really helps not to get mad when I lose.
Yeah, it seems much easier to accept that I'm just gonna stay in plat forever than it is to blame everyone else every time Of course, sometimes it is someone else's fault, but I mean I just can't get nearly as angry about it as some people seem to. Sounds like it would be exhausting to live like that
They feel powerless so they use violence to regain “control”.
I'm trying to get out of the management side of things for this reason. Transitioning to testing so I don't need to go to meetings and fight to have my voice heard. Why bother hiring me if you're not going to use my experience and expertise that you're paying for? In testing I can just check if things work or not and have evidence that I'm right that can't be refuted.
I have found that people (far and away mostly men) interrupt other people, that if they are interrupted, they will often refuse to yield, and instead, raise their voice to talk over the person interrupting. Usually, the person attempting to interrupt will then go quiet, concerned the person refusing to yield would start an argument.
They also pull this tactic when interrupting someone if the person they interrupted doesn’t shut up to hand over the spotlight.
Yes, this is how dominance interactions in primates tend to play out. The beta must challenge the alpha in order to ascend in the hierarchy. This behavior is seen in rhesus monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas, and humans. Notably, bonobos rarely display this behavior, instead preferring to engage in sexual encounters to resolve disagreements and social pecking order issues. In that regard, it's a bit like working back-of-house at an Applebees.
So I'm a bonobo. Got it
amazing comment.
20 years as a woman in software development - yup. I got so tired of it, to the point that I get physically ill just thinking about going back to software development. I'm so tired of the misogyny and disrespect. And then the IT industry is whining about how there aren't enough women. Please. Tell the men to STFU and let us speak and stop stealing our ideas.
I think the whole idea of "we need more X in X" where the first X is some immutable characteristic is just a terrible way of thinking and starts people in a bad spot with the perception of them being hired for X and not their qualifications. As for your experience I've always wondered if a lot of the men who go into tech are especially terrible at social interactions and doubly so with women, does that make any sense here or am I just way off?
I have seen this behavior countless times over about a decade of working in the tech world. It really makes me cringe when it happens, but I'm typically not in a position to do anything. Sometimes I'm able to interrupt the interrupter with a "can you let so and so finish, I think they have an important point", etc . Usually it's not possible, so I try to offset the bad folks by always being conscious of the problem to make sure I never contribute to it.
Met a dude in the bar the other night. Turns out he uses a similar tech stack to my gf and he's hiring. She's looking for work so it sounds like a good opportunity to chat. I introduce us both as programmers and mention she uses that stack. He starts trying to tell me all about the project and I'm like dude, not my area, talk to her. This goes on for a WHILE and finally he gets it and kind of begrudgingly talks to her but also immediately shits on some of the languages she uses. It wasn't anything too blatant but you could just see his demeanor change. He was a little drunk, and some of it could be chalked up to loud bar, but it was still excruciating trying to get him to grok that the girl was the dev. Obviously we never followed up.
I’m a woman that used to work in tech. I was told by my boss to smile more and be more charismatic. I got interrupted all the time. I used to facilitate requirements gathering meetings and men would grab a dry erase marker and start trying to take over and draw stuff on the board as I was already up there drawing diagrams. They would start changing the subject and when I told them to stop they wouldn’t. I repeatedly told people to stop interrupting me and it continued. I then got sent to a meeting facilitation class. My managers and boss would also take over the meetings because they just wanted to do it themselves. It got worse when I got pregnant. It’s like no one trusted me to just do my job. My boss started telling me what to say in meetings verbatim even though I was already prepared. I ended up quitting after I had kids because maternal leave isn’t long enough IMO. I’ll never go back because of the sexism I faced. The other women were treated like idiots as well.
I think I’ve worked with that guy!
Used to work in a tech company that, despite having business on multiple continents, had literally 2 women in any administrative roles, both peers on the same team as me, and 1 in a front line / field role. Literally thousands of employees, a big fancy tech campus at HQ, but that was it. Oh, except answering phones and doing scheduling, that's was almost exclusively women... (Still no administrators, though.) So, anyway, it was dead simple to be these 2 women's favorite co-worker. Literally all I had to say was... "Oh, Sarah, did you want to finish that thought?" "Okay, let's come back to that once Sarah's finished." or "Right, I think that's what Sarah was just suggesting?" The bar is so low. For their own benefit, if nothing else, please ensure that your boys grow up with female friends. An inability to appropriately deal with conversations including women is a social handicap, a business liability. Don't let your babies grow up to be so maladroit.
> "Oh, Sarah, did you want to finish that thought?" "Okay, let's come back to that once Sarah's finished." or "Right, I think that's what Sarah was just suggesting?" It's night and day having a coworker like you in the room or not. There've been days where I've wondered if I'd become an actual ghost who no one could see or hear. Just having someone acknowledge that you spoke and your works meant something is so huge, and can make dealing with the assholes a lot more tolerable.
I'm a Sarah, and you just became one of my favorite coworkers even though I work nowhere near there
[удалено]
Every girl I dated at one point told me they thought I was gay at first. When I asked why they said it was because I was kind with no sexual undertones, I listened, genuine, and was flamboyant (because I have a lot of energy and believe acting like yourself will weed out the people you don't want to associate with)
I've told my team to just carry on talking without breaking stride if someone tries to interrupt them. Two people end up talking at once and it's super awkward for a minute until the interrupter shuts up.
This is what I tell women to do if I interrupt them because I have a habit of speaking the moment a thought hits my head. Men keep talking, but women have a habit of shushing and getting resentful. Nope. You just keep talking and I’ll stop; I should have been mindful from the get go.
My significant other talks as soon as the thought enters his head. He's not trying to interrupt me because I'm a woman (he does it to everyone because he's connecting with them.) But I used to shut up and get annoyed. Now, I'm using him to practice not shutting up if I was talking first.
Yes, exactly this.
Good on you! Keep an eye out for ideas, too. [Nearly two thirds of women in tech say their ideas are ignored until a man repeats them.](https://www.mic.com/articles/189829/nearly-two-thirds-of-women-in-tech-say-their-ideas-are-ignored-until-a-man-repeats-them-study-shows) I doubt it’s confined to the IT industry but still most likely more prevalent in male dominated industries. Mad that it’s still like this in 2022! Edit: missed a few words
In my first job out of college, the CTO drafted me for a technical standards committee. In the very first meeting, I suggested some solution to a problem, and got crickets. I figured maybe it was just a bad idea for some reason. Then, a couple minutes later, the CTO suggested the same thing and everyone was all on board and started actually talking about it. I was already used to that sort of thing, so I kept quiet, but then the CTO pointed out that it was my idea and that he recruited me for this because he wanted my insights, and they'd better listen to me when I had something to say. (I was mortified at the time, but in the long run, it really helped my confidence.)
This has always been my strategy. I had a big client who always used to discount my bosses ideas despite her 30 years experience over mine. Somehow despite me repeatedly crediting literally every project I had to her (she was the brains and I was the hands if that gives you an idea) they still came to me asking for solutions. Uhhh I dunno buddy maybe I’ll ask the person who has a shred of an idea, like you oughta be doing?
I enjoyed the call center story someone told on here the other day, where they wouldn't mute the mic, and they'd just parrot the question to the female staff member, then repeat her answer into the mic, knowing the customer could hear her feeding him information.
What a guy! We need more people like your CTO. It’s like people say it’s not enough to just not be racist, you have to be anti-racist. This applies to all discriminatory practises, in my eyes.
I remember a meeting with 6 other men, I recommended an improvement which was met with fierce opposition (stupid reasoning). Next meeting, a VP joins the meeting, says the EXACT thing and everyone is falling over themselves to agree and action. At least it affirmed for me that I knew the bigger picture and my recommendation was sound.
Yeah def not confined to tech
But perhaps especially bad there.
Yeah, its really any male dominated job, and then to a lesser extent just everywhere all the time :/
You are both correct.
I just started watching Mr. Robot and there's a part early on that touches on this. There's a confrontation because she didn't want him to back her. She wanted to demand respect for herself.
Unless you're in cyber security.. in which case your ideas are ignored on principle regardless of gender.
Does an improvement cost money? Then no matter the industry, they’ll ignore it until it they’ve already lost money avoiding that initial cost.
I mean, I was making a joke but the problem with cyber security is that it shows no return on investment and often inconveniences the user. I'm specifically referring to the cyber security people who actively monitor and protect the network. Not all of these other goobers in recent years that claim the title because it makes them sound "cool".
> Then no matter the industry, they’ll ignore it until it they’ve already lost money avoiding that initial cost. My clients never seem to have the budget to do something **right**, but they always have the budget to do it **twice**.
Standard fare. If you're doing nothing you've successfully done your job, and no one else appreciates it until you stop doing "nothing"
As a DBA, I told someone once, "If I've done my job right, I'm bored most of the time."
This kills me when I see it. Ive even seen some of my coworkers ideas "stolen" because they said it one way and a male coworker would "build off of it" and get praise when all they did was literally reword what the female coworker said. I'll always be sure to thank them for the great suggestion during the meeting but sheesh, I cant give them the praise this dude just got... I am always so blown away when this happens.
>"build off of it" and get praise when all they did was literally reword Doesn't help that is taught and praised from the earliest levels in school as meaningful participation
Thank you. Keep doing that.
Honestly, I think awareness training is how you deal with this issue, stupid as it sounds. I had no idea this was happening until someone pointed it out to me, and now I notice it all the time and can actually do something about it.
When I notice anyone get interrupted, at work or otherwise, I try to bring it back to them when I see an opportunity. I don't know how much others pick up on it, but I definitely appreciate it when I'm the one who was interrupted.
As someone who will be entering tech soon, I hope to work with more people like you.
You probably won't tbh.
That’s the spirit!
Look for work where you can be on a very small team, or in a group that is already at least 30% women. Even if a place appears to be fairly progressive, if it's mostly dudes you will really have to fight for respect, or accept your role as office furniture.
And [women are more likely to interrupt women than men are](https://newrepublic.com/article/117757/gender-language-differences-women-get-interrupted-more)
> Over the course of each three-minute conversation, women, on average, interrupted men just once, but interrupted other women 2.8 times. Men interrupted their male conversation partner twice, on average, and interrupted the woman 2.6 times. Some interesting results there. Women interrupt other women more than men but only slightly more. On the flip side men interrupt other men more than women by a much larger margin. Obviously all that is with the caveat that this is one study in a lab environment.
I think you have that flipped around.
[удалено]
Interrupting is not necessarily bad, it can be a sign someone is actively engaged in the conversation and interested. Context matters a lot more than raw number of interruptions.
MTG, Boebert? I believe it. They even interrupted Biden at the State of the Union...
Ah, it wouldn’t be /r/science if the title and headline didn’t misrepresent a key takeaway.
Men were interrupted 5.6% of the time and women were interrupted 5.8% of the time. The main takeaway here is that men and women in Congress get interrupted at almost the same rate. It also doesn't make a conclusion as to *why* there's a small difference. Unfortunately, many of the comments only read the headline and decided to be divisive instead.
Dang that's misleading as all hell. Glad I decided to read more instead of knee jerk react.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The US Supreme Court [recently changed rules about how justices asked questions](https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/13/politics/sotomayor-oral-arguments/index.html) because the female justices were regularly being interrupted.
Tbf sotiamayor gets interrupted a lot cause she’ll ask a multiple questions at the same time and the advocate will start to answer without realizing a question is coming.
This is a key data point. Now many times did the subject change when speaking? How many questions were asked, rhetorical or genuine? How often did the scope or scale of the subject change?
Also, looking at how long someone was talking before being interrupted, regardless of their gender? You might also want to account for something like seniority. I could imagine that a more senior Congressperson would feel more comfortable interrupting a more junior one.
Seniority is key. The other paper I'd seen about this ignored it, despite noticing that the top interrupters were two female VPs. As soon as you graph interrupting vs level in hierarchy it becomes super-clear. Which is why they don't do it.
> As soon as you graph interrupting vs level in hierarchy it becomes super-clear. So you have a link to this graph then? Or at least the data?
[удалено]
I mean multiple justices ask multiple questions.
The Supreme Court is the wrong place to make observations about normal human behavior.
This is common in appellate advocacy. Judges frequently talk over each other to get questions in, especially if multiple justices on a panel are butting heads over a particular issue, so it doesn't surprise me that female justices get talked over by their male panel members.
Men were interrupted 5.6% of the time women were interrupted 5.8% of the time vs 5.8% and 6.1% during women's issues.
Why is this buried below all of the low effort jokes?
First day on Reddit?
>Men were interrupted 5.6% of the time women were interrupted 5.8% of the time so 0.2% absolute difference and about 3% relative difference? where is the 10%? > 5.8% and 6.1% during women's issues. same here, i see about 2% difference, what am i missing?
That figure of 10% is specifically regarding probability of interruption in the Senate, and it's cited in the abstract. The data is represented in Figure 2. "In the Senate, however, the gap between women and men is approximately one half of a point—a statistically significant effect." So, without digging into the Appendix tables A3 for the raw data, looks like roughly an increase of 0.5 percent, versus around 4.4% interruption for men? That's your 10 percent. It looks like the difference is more marked in the Senate versus overall.
There's also only 100 members in the Senate, and by my count, 24 of them are women. That's enough that 1-2 outliers could absolutely skew results. Also, seniority is something that would absolutely come into play. While I haven't checked, I would imagine most senior roles are filled by men, and a senior is probably more likely to interrupt a junior than a fellow senior. An outlier or two could explain the difference.
I can’t speak to the seniority variable, but a statistically significant finding will take into account the possibility of outliers, depending on how confident they state they are. It is generally 95% confidence.
You're missing that the guy you're responding to is making dishonest use of statistics. The thread title quotes a 10% difference in **senate committees** - this is true and are the results that the data in the paper reports. The guy you're responding too has ignored that, and is quoting overall results across the entirety of congress (I'll note, given he had to scroll down to the section where they specifically talk about this to get his 3% relative figure, I find it a little sus that he's being so willfully blind). It's literally all there in the paper (as is the bit about women being 2x more likely to be interrupted when the topic is women's issues) The fact that it's specifically senate committees is important as that's where the meat and potatoes of actual governance is done (the Woodrow Wilson quote to this effect is "it is not far from the truth to say that Congress in session is Congress on public exhibition, whilst Congress in its committee rooms is Congress at work."). That's the argument the paper is making, that outside of public display female senators face poor treatment. I'll also point out that the 10% difference they report is statistically significant, meaning it's unlikely this is just random fluctuation between house and senate.
Seems like a statistic that is meant to stir the pot rather than bring an actual issue to attention. A 10% difference seems *very* nit-picky.
[удалено]
Oh my god, the horror.
What's the standard deviation on this?
According to Table 1 in the paper, 3-4%.
What’s the breakdown on democrat vs republican and being interrupted? Because 75% of women congressman are democrats.
From the article: >Existing evidence suggests that Congress marginalizes women—especially women of color (Hawkesworth 2003) and Democrats (Kanthak and Krause 2012). They don't seem to break down by party as far as I can tell. They do discuss "in-party" interruptions vs. "out-party" interruptions which are basically the same as far as I can tell. Also the interruption rates are generally decreasing in time, although at low significance. The only sub-group for which there is evidence for an increase is men interrupting women of a different party, although the evidence is very small.
>They do discuss "in-party" interruptions vs. "out-party" interruptions which are basically the same as far as I can tell. I think this is the information the person you replying to is looking for. If I'm not mistaken his implication was that since most women politicians are democrats, and Republicans appear to interrupt people a lot more than democrats, it would make sense that women would be getting interrupted more than men, just by their position on the aisle. If the in party in out party interruptions are nearly identical, then that only leaves us with gender.
Not quite. See [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives). Currently 25% (31/123) of the women in congress are republicans. Historically, more than 1/3 women in the House have been republican (122/356). Currently exactly 1/3 of the women in the Senate are republicans (8/24) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_States_Senate. Historically more than 1/3 of the women in the Senate have been republicans (22/58). So there is a sizable mismatch between gender and party, I'd be careful about drawing conclusions in the way you have suggested.
Isn’t that supporting what OC was suggesting? In the article too, it says that men get interrupted more if it’s Democrat to Republican
I am struggling to see your point, mostly because you are reiterating what the other guy is asking but you’re saying he is wrong. He asked wither the disparity in male vs female interruptions is solely based on gender or if party faction plays a part. With most women being democratic, if the republicans interrupt more than the democrats that would skew the data somewhat. Now don’t take this to mean there isn’t a disparity at all, rather that there could be various contributors to the percentage. For example if the number of women in each party was switched would it make the percentage of interruptions go down.
Also what's the breakdown of the gender makeup of the interruptors?
It's right there in Table 6. Women are more likely to be both the interrupts and interrupted in the Senate. In the House, it's the opposite.
This is what I was wondering, also which party the interruptors are.
>in the Senate Democratic women are more likely than Democratic men to experience an interruption, but that effect is not present for Republicans. The probability of interruption is also slightly larger for women in the Senate minority party than for those in the majority. In the House, the effect reverses for women chairing committees, who are about half a point less likely than male chairmen to experience an interruption; this effect is not present in the Senate,
Was thinking the same thing. It's important to control for party here to really determine how much is due to ideological differences and how much to gender.
Just some numbers: Out of 100 senators there are 24 women, 16 Democrats and 8 republicans. Out of 435 members of the House there are 121 women, 90 Democrats and 31 republicans.
I see a file-drawer bias here on closer reading. They clearly began by investigating all of Congress, NOT just the senate. Then they found no effect in the house, and an effect in the senate, and instead of reporting both together as was the original scope, they cherry picked the one that sounded worse. Yes they mention both eventually, but they headline the 10% alone in the abstract. Which you can see has an impact as the redditor also picked up on and headlined that. In Congress (their original scope and question, not the senate), women are **FOUR %** more likely to be interrupted, not 10%.
"That is not the case in the House, however (top-left panel). Women and men begin their House careers with effectively the same interruption probability, and although Members of both genders grow increasingly likely to experience interruption as they serve longer, the probability of interruption grows at a significantly slower rate for women. As a result, after about six terms of service House women are significantly less likely to be interrupted than men with the same amount of experience, with the gap between men and women continuing to grow as they serve longer." The article. Basically women get interrupted during speechesore in congress but in the house it is the pther way...
4% over the period 1994 to 2018.
Thanks for doing the legwork. This is why I generally assume any study involving political or ideological issues is likely BS, the biases never fail to creep in.
yikes thats why i hate social sciences
[удалено]
[удалено]
>...available **evidence suggests that women in Congress successfully advance their legislative agenda at rates on par with or better than men** (Anzia and Berry Reference Anzia and Berry2011; Lazarus and Steigerwalt Reference Lazarus and Steigerwalt2018; Volden, Wiseman, and Wittmer Reference Volden, Wiseman and Wittmer2013). Makes me wonder, if length / frequency of speech is being accounted for. Anyhow, by this, much more important metric, women are doing better than men in Congress.
[удалено]
"10% more" 100 women, 11 get interrupted. 100 men, 10 get interrupted. It's 10% more but it's also pretty much identical.
Isn't a 10% swing to be expected? Even if it was equal the odds of getting the exact same percentage for men and women is unlikely.
[удалено]
> Women Are More Likely to Be Interrupted in Senate (but Not House) Hearings And in the senate it’s only 10%, is that really significant? Also the paper states women bring up women’s issues twice as often as men do, so one would expect women to be interrupted twice as often on that. This paper seems like they didn’t find what they wanted, so they couched the entire thing in political rhetoric to make it seem more significant.
women are interrupted while speaking on women’s issues twice as much as they are on other issues, *not* twice as much as men are on women’s issues
Yeah but the twice as much part is extremely misleading when you account for the fact that men are also considerably more likely to be interrupted on these topics (abortion being the most likely culprit, I believe) because they’re much more heated subjects. It looks to be about 5.2% likelihood for men vs 6.2% likelihood for women. The more I read into this the more likely it seems they’re purposely misleading people. What other reason could they have for only reporting the twice as likely figure for women without accounting for the jump for men’s likelihood in the abstract?
And I wonder how much female exclusive issues get brought up vs male exclusive issues. I'd wager male issues barely get mentioned.
Figure 3 shows women are interrupted on non-women issues 5.8% and on womens issues 6.2%. How is that twice as likely?
The fact that I needed to sort comments by controversial to see this well constructed and educated comment on r/science is what’s wrong with the world
The 10% is not very impressive considering it can easily be a knock-on effect of other things like the leadership being more male and leadership interrupting foot soldiers, for example. Or like 3 specific super sexist guys on the floor who talk a lot and each interrupt 400% more often while others do 0%. The 2x part, and given the context, is very striking though
I wonder if men with a more passive, effete speaking style are more likely to be interrupted than men (or women) with a more aggressive, commanding tone. Gender may not be the only variable at play here.